Could I get in a Russell group uni if I did these A-Levels?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bax-man
I took Law at A-level - explain that?
What exactly do you want me to explain? After studying it for two years I would hope you knew what the subject was about better than me.
You can't learn law while you are working, however you can learn how to use word and excel. I'm just repeating what my own ICT teacher told me.
Original post by gilllybeans
I personally can't think of a degree course that is looking for that selection of a-levels. The thing is, my choosing these subjects she is actually narrowing her options as the selection is so random and unrelated. OP really needs to have a general idea of where she wants to take these subjects if she wants to be a success.
I agree, but if you don't know what you wanna do then what can you do about that really. I've advised the OP to look for what the courses want, so they know that now
Original post by tooosh
ICT didn't help your application though. Unfortunately it's not how we consider it that matters, it's how unis consider it.
Perhaps it didn't help, it certainly didn't work to the applicant's advantage, but neither did it necessarily significantly disadvantage.
In the OP's case, if he/she were still considering the four subect in the original post, then ICT is a fourth A-level. However, as already mentioned, for a Politics degree you don't need Politics A-level (it will not give a significant advantage either) and, if you are doing Chemistry, it would be sensible to do another science alongside it. But, if you aren't strong in the other sciences, it would be unwise to chose one. Although you (OP) haven't mentioned Geography as an intended degree, I think to do physicial geog/a BSc at a number of universities two sciences are required. Geography, in this context, is usually considered a science. So if you were to apply for Geography, Geography will supplement the Chemistry.
Original post by hoopyfrood199
Pick subjects you like. You get into Russell Group universities by being passionate about your subject more than anything. I got into Leeds Uni with English Lit, Film and Politics, which aren't thought to be great A-Levels.
I don't see the obsession with Russell Group though, they're about research, not degree quality...
I don't see the obsession with Russell Group though, they're about research, not degree quality...
English it is strong and Politics is still fairly well recognised and respected.
Original post by Irishmonkey1992
That's utter crap... I'm going to a Russel Group University to study ICT, they prefer to see you have ICT in order to do that.
Oh... and it seems the majority of people on this thread believe that ICT is an easy A-Level, you OBVIOUSLY havn't done it for A-Level because you're severely mistaken; it ruins your life trying to get a high mark with such a vague mark scheme.
Oh... and it seems the majority of people on this thread believe that ICT is an easy A-Level, you OBVIOUSLY havn't done it for A-Level because you're severely mistaken; it ruins your life trying to get a high mark with such a vague mark scheme.
This is a very general point but people are being quite unfair when they equate what are sometimess less preferred subjects with "soft" subjects (often indicating they are easier). There are few officially published university blacklists/list of less preferred subjects. In all of these ICT is blacklisted or accepted but listed as less preferred.
Because a subject is less preferred it doesn't make it easy. Take art, for example, it is an incredibly difficult subject for most. Even those with a flair for the subject can struggle with the workload and won't achieve an A. The reason why a certain number of departments list these as less preferred isn't because they are necessarily easy but because they are of limited relevant to the subjects taught at university. Art arguably has limited relevance to all university subjects (with the exception of art itself, creative courses and architecture). Because of the vague mark scheme associated with ICT, and because it doesn't allow a student to develop transferable skills directly related to the course they are applying for, they are less preferred.
But, again, this doesn't mean they are "easy". It also doesn't mean that the OP will find an offer from a RG university impossible to attain. Particularly if it is a fourth subject.
Original post by FinalMH
ICT is a pointless A level, and the uni you applied for must of not be good uni ( just cause its in the russell group doesn't mean its good) Any uni that accepts someone to do computer science with out Maths or Computing isn't good. And tbh most people who are doing Computer Science would agree, its more about Maths than anything else which btw you don't do in ICT
Name me a bad Russell Group university then? The vast majority of the multi-faculty universities are of a comparable standard, and will certainly provide a comparable undergraduate education. They are all amongst our leading universities.
As with all multi-faculty universities some will have quie modest departments relatively speaking with modest entry standards or teaching and research standards, but this is true of all (whether UCL, Manchester, Newcastle, Warwick and, yes, even Oxford and Cambridge....).
Well...a little more complicated than that...but let's assume it is broadly true. But what makes the Russell Group an exhaustive list of "good" and "reputable" universities? I think this was the point trying to be made.
What are you referring to there? That universities outside the Russell Group are possible not as good, despite ranking well, because of redundant critieria used in league tables? As far as I'm aware the number of foreign staff and students is only used in one or two global rankings. They are not used in domestic rankings.
This does not mean domestic rankings don't have their flaws.
Russel Group shows the university has a high calibre of staff due to funding. Hopefully they will pass their skills to their students.
Yeah.........
You're ignoring something. The Russell Group is a lobbying group of large research intensive universities. There are other lobbying groups including the 1994 Group (of smaller research intensive universities). The Russell Group is not an exhaustive list of our "best" universities and it also is not an exhaustive list of our research intensive universities. Universities in the 1994 Group still compete with those in the RG in terms of world class research and funding. I think Durham (1994 Group) has a fairly similar research income to Warwick (Russell Group), for example.
Original post by multiplexing-gamer
Re: Could I get in a Russell group uni if I did these A-Levels?
Maths
Biology
Politics
ICT
=
Maths
Biology
Politics
ICT
=
Original post by multiplexing-gamer
I'd like to do either a Biology, Computer Science or Politics degree.
For 2012 entry to Computer Science courses at Oxford normally make an offer of A*AA on three A levels including at least an A in Maths. For Computer Science, and Computer Science & Philosophy students the A* must be in Maths, Further Maths, Physics or Computing. For Maths & Computer Science students the A* must be in Mathematics or Further Mathematics.
You do not need to have studied Computer Science/ICT at school to apply. (You do however need to be able to demonstrate a genuine interest in the subject.) Some of our students have Computer Science A Levels (or equivalent) when the come to us; many don't.
Computing is a mathematical subject, especially in the way we approach it at Oxford. So you will need to have developed your ability in mathematical thinking. We think doing both Maths and Further Maths to A2 (or equivalent) is the best way of doing this, but we recognize that some schools are unable to offer this combination. So Further Maths is recommended, but not essential. We also recommend taking a science subject.
There is no particular advantage in admissions terms to taking a fourth A level, and it is much better to be sure of A grades in three subjects than to spread yourself too thinly over four. If you are taking a four A-levels, we only rarely specify a fourth grade.
Take a look at our admissions website for more guidance, or do feel free to contact us. Out details are on the site. http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/admissions/ugrad/Computer_Science_at_Oxford
Original post by gilllybeans
What exactly do you want me to explain? After studying it for two years I would hope you knew what the subject was about better than me.
You can't learn law while you are working, however you can learn how to use word and excel. I'm just repeating what my own ICT teacher told me.
You can't learn law while you are working, however you can learn how to use word and excel. I'm just repeating what my own ICT teacher told me.
What I'm trying to say is that your blanket comment that taking a subject that is generally less respected will mean disappointment and rejection when it comes to applying to top institutions is absurd.
The Russel Group means nothing really. There are brilliant universities outside of it, and some of the ones outside of it are much better than some of the unis in the RG.
This.
Possibly because it wasn't available for him to take?
Original post by ilickbatteries
Don't just limit yourself to the Russell Group either, ITS NOT THE BE ALL AND END ALL. The Russell Group are research intensive universities whose only purpose is to take the highest amount of research money given to one group of universities, and even then it's distributed unfairly between them.
There are some great universities in the 1994 group. Exeter, Bath, Durham, York, St Andrews etc.
Don't just limit yourself to the Russell Group either, ITS NOT THE BE ALL AND END ALL. The Russell Group are research intensive universities whose only purpose is to take the highest amount of research money given to one group of universities, and even then it's distributed unfairly between them.
There are some great universities in the 1994 group. Exeter, Bath, Durham, York, St Andrews etc.
This.
Original post by Millyshyn
Why don't you take Computing instead of ICT?
Possibly because it wasn't available for him to take?
I was given an offer by a Russell Group university (although as has been pointed out, a Russell Group university doesn't necessarily equate to being the best) with a D in AS Media Studies so there is hope for anyone. People tend to look into things like this a bit too much. 99% of admissions tutors aren't looking at your application for faults or things they don't like, they probably want to accept you just as much as you'd want to. A strong PS can get you very far. Use your A-Level options to your advantage. Tell the admissions tutor why those choices will make you stand out from the other applicants and how it can give you an advantage when studying subject x.
Relax.
Relax.
Original post by River85
Name me a bad Russell Group university then? The vast majority of the multi-faculty universities are of a comparable standard, and will certainly provide a comparable undergraduate education. They are all amongst our leading universities.
As with all multi-faculty universities some will have quie modest departments relatively speaking with modest entry standards or teaching and research standards, but this is true of all (whether UCL, Manchester, Newcastle, Warwick and, yes, even Oxford and Cambridge....).
.
Name me a bad Russell Group university then? The vast majority of the multi-faculty universities are of a comparable standard, and will certainly provide a comparable undergraduate education. They are all amongst our leading universities.
As with all multi-faculty universities some will have quie modest departments relatively speaking with modest entry standards or teaching and research standards, but this is true of all (whether UCL, Manchester, Newcastle, Warwick and, yes, even Oxford and Cambridge....).
.
What i said was really vague, my apologies.
My point that i was making is that a university doesn’t have to be good to be in the Russell group and even though it is in the Russell group doesn’t mean its "great". After all Russell Group is only group of intensive researching universities. And just because its part of the group doesn’t imply they are great for all subjects (besides few universities of course)
it’s also bit funny that you choose the university that are in the top 10... Would you say in your personal opinion that Queen's University Belfast is great/good universities compared to Durham which isn’t part of the group?
I’m Just saying most are but you can’t generalized all course the university offer and define them as all “good”
That they rank highly and produce high quality research is what gives them recognition. They still had recognition before the Russell Group existed so, no, being in the Russell Group is not what earns them a good reputation. Especially considering when many do not know the members of the Russell Group or know what it is for.
But world leading research is not limited to Russell Group universities. All universities show evidence of world leading research. Like the Russell Group universities, the 1994 Group universities also produce copious amounts of world and international class research across the faculities and contain some world leading departments.
You're also assuming that research quality has a direct effect on undergraduate education. This isn't necessarily true. There are some courses where research led education might be a benefit (psychology for example). But, even then, I can name three leading psychology universities who aren't in the Russell Group (one isn't in the 1994 Group, either) but still produce significant research and have leading international names
By and large, I really don't think undergraduates benefit tremendously from being in a research intensive department and there are cases when they can be disadvantaged and suffer form poor contact hours. It's a mixed bag.
How good an academic is as a researcher is not necessarily the best indification of how well they teach. 1994 Group universities are still research intensive universities with considerable research strength across the faculities.
I don't understand what you mean by the "good skills" of staff "rubbing off" or being passed onto students. Skills at what? Being an academic? How is this done?
Yes, Russell Group universities do, on the whole, receive more funding. But, as already mentioned, a number of 1994 Group universities receive comparable amounts to certain RG universities (and the amount of fudning RG universities receive can vary significantly from Warwick at one end to Oxford and Cambridge at the next).
You haven't clearly explained why the amount of research
It obviously varies year by year (and also by table) but there usually is not much in it. It's probably around 6 of the top 10 are RG and 18 of the top 20. Hardly a significant difference, is it?
And (I really, really get tired of saying this) there is not some gulf between the top 20 universities and the rest. A university ranking 20th is not necessarily "better" than one ranking 40th. Take Southampton and Manchester as examples. Both Russell Group universities, capable of deliverying a comparably high quality undergraduate education amongst many of their departments witrh a broadly similar student quality. Besides, the top 20 universities vary on an annual basis.
Twenty is such an arbitary number. The majority of Russell and 1994 Group universities will provide a comparable level of undergraduate education. Check out the REA, check out the QAA, ask a range of academics, ask students who have attended or taught at a both types of institutions.
If you think otherwise then provide evidence.
As already mentioned, there are still a reasonable number of 1994 Group universities in the "top 20". Some of these 1994 Group universities have typically ranked in the top 10 on consistant basis (Durham, York).
If you really think most employers are going to say "right, you have a degree from Durham, St Andrews, Queen Mary, Aberdeen...piss off" then you really don't know what you're talking about.
I'm only being harsh becase a) you're spouting what is at best semi-nonsense b) you provide no evidence to back up your claims (are you at university? Are you in graduate employment?) and c) there's a risk you will mislead people who don't know any better or applicants.
The quality of research by a university is an indicator as to how leading the staff are. Staff which are not leading surely are not as good as leading staff? It's a generalisation but is a general rule.
But world leading research is not limited to Russell Group universities. All universities show evidence of world leading research. Like the Russell Group universities, the 1994 Group universities also produce copious amounts of world and international class research across the faculities and contain some world leading departments.
You're also assuming that research quality has a direct effect on undergraduate education. This isn't necessarily true. There are some courses where research led education might be a benefit (psychology for example). But, even then, I can name three leading psychology universities who aren't in the Russell Group (one isn't in the 1994 Group, either) but still produce significant research and have leading international names
By and large, I really don't think undergraduates benefit tremendously from being in a research intensive department and there are cases when they can be disadvantaged and suffer form poor contact hours. It's a mixed bag.
How good an academic is as a researcher is not necessarily the best indification of how well they teach. 1994 Group universities are still research intensive universities with considerable research strength across the faculities.
I don't understand what you mean by the "good skills" of staff "rubbing off" or being passed onto students. Skills at what? Being an academic? How is this done?
The 1994 group doesn't come close to the amount of funding that the RG has
Yes, Russell Group universities do, on the whole, receive more funding. But, as already mentioned, a number of 1994 Group universities receive comparable amounts to certain RG universities (and the amount of fudning RG universities receive can vary significantly from Warwick at one end to Oxford and Cambridge at the next).
You haven't clearly explained why the amount of research
and has less top 20 unis than the RG.
It obviously varies year by year (and also by table) but there usually is not much in it. It's probably around 6 of the top 10 are RG and 18 of the top 20. Hardly a significant difference, is it?
And (I really, really get tired of saying this) there is not some gulf between the top 20 universities and the rest. A university ranking 20th is not necessarily "better" than one ranking 40th. Take Southampton and Manchester as examples. Both Russell Group universities, capable of deliverying a comparably high quality undergraduate education amongst many of their departments witrh a broadly similar student quality. Besides, the top 20 universities vary on an annual basis.
Twenty is such an arbitary number. The majority of Russell and 1994 Group universities will provide a comparable level of undergraduate education. Check out the REA, check out the QAA, ask a range of academics, ask students who have attended or taught at a both types of institutions.
If you think otherwise then provide evidence.
It's just a rule of thumb. RG unis tend to be highly regarded as they seem to be constantly in the top 20.
As already mentioned, there are still a reasonable number of 1994 Group universities in the "top 20". Some of these 1994 Group universities have typically ranked in the top 10 on consistant basis (Durham, York).
If you really think most employers are going to say "right, you have a degree from Durham, St Andrews, Queen Mary, Aberdeen...piss off" then you really don't know what you're talking about.
I'm only being harsh becase a) you're spouting what is at best semi-nonsense b) you provide no evidence to back up your claims (are you at university? Are you in graduate employment?) and c) there's a risk you will mislead people who don't know any better or applicants.
I just rung up the unis to ask them what subjects were acceptable as I took 4 A2 levels, not all of which were relevant to my subject (architecture). By the response I was able to gage the riskiness of the application and apply for the best courses. There's nothing to be lost by taking the time out for an afternoon to call the unis. Speaking from friends experience, a 4th A level seems to go down well with certain Russell groups, particuarly Birmingham uni for some reason where a number of people I know got lower offers as a result, however it's worth calling them individually, they all have very different preferences and policies.
From that perspective, it's best to ignore the RG and just apply for top 10/top 20 unis. There's no need to go on 'more likely to be in a top 10 or top 20 uni' when you can just look at league tables and pick a uni that's in the top 10.
I wouldn't recommend that as league tables are often full of ****, but if reputation/etc is important to you then definitely go for a position in a table rather than which group an university is in. There wouldn't be any point not applying to St Andrew's or Durham or Bath just because they're in not in the RG as they have reputations equal to/better than many RG unis.
I wouldn't recommend that as league tables are often full of ****, but if reputation/etc is important to you then definitely go for a position in a table rather than which group an university is in. There wouldn't be any point not applying to St Andrew's or Durham or Bath just because they're in not in the RG as they have reputations equal to/better than many RG unis.
But the point is that its not just the RG in the top 20.
Bath for example, is not in the RG, yet is usually regarded as a better university than Cardiff, which is in the RG.
Bath for example, is not in the RG, yet is usually regarded as a better university than Cardiff, which is in the RG.
Original post by Bax-man
What I'm trying to say is that your blanket comment that taking a subject that is generally less respected will mean disappointment and rejection when it comes to applying to top institutions is absurd.
My comment is not "absurd". With growing competition over university places, unversities are looking for candidates with strong a-levels. Universities do not respect subjects such as business studies, ICT, media studies etc. Therefore there is a greater chance of disappointment and rejection.
I'm just trying to help OP, not give her false hope like some people.
Original post by gilllybeans
My comment is not "absurd". With growing competition over university places, unversities are looking for candidates with strong a-levels. Universities do not respect subjects such as business studies, ICT, media studies etc. Therefore there is a greater chance of disappointment and rejection.
I'm just trying to help OP, not give her false hope like some people.
I'm just trying to help OP, not give her false hope like some people.
You told the OP that they had "no chance" because of their taking ICT at A-level. I'm pointing out that one weaker subject does not mean an applicant will see five rejections - I studied Law and received an offer for PPE at Oxford, for example.
(edited 13 years ago)
And I will say once more, what gives you the experience to say that this is the case?
No because you're making a number of assumptions. The first is that employers look at league tables. By and large those involved in recruitment do not even look at league tables even if they do have a preference for certain universities. Do you really expect employers to rush to the league tables are produced every year and disect them?
Neither will most know who the Russell Group members are. Even those who do, they'll recognise the equally quality universities outside the RG and that the group is only a lobbying group. A university in the RG is not necessarily better, or produces higher quality graduates, than one outside. Particularly not 1994 Group institions.
They are reasonably informed people and will realise that universities do not steadily decline in quality from an arbitary position. They also have experiencing in dealing and working alongside graduates from a range of universities. This experience is often more likely to influence them than league tables.
Graduates were employed long before league tables and the RG came only in the early to mid 1990s. How did employers differentiate between applicants then? Academic performance, interview performance, work experience...
The second assumption is that they place high focus on university name. This can vary significantly from employer to employer and by sector/job role. By and large it plays a minor role (if any at all) and, when it does, is usually only of consequence in the early stages of an application. An employer will not reject a person who has enviable experience and impresses in interview just because he or she went to a universities outside the top 20.
You're barely more likely to attend a top 10 or 20 university if you're at a RG university. In fact take a look at the Independent's Complete University Guide (2011).
Four of the top 10 are RG universities. 1994 Group unis include Durham (4th) and St Andrews (6th).
Look at the top 20. 10 are Russell Group, Eight are from the 1994 Group and 2 are in neither (Aston and Buckingham). So that's an even split, isn't it?
So I'm afriad based on this year's table you're completely incorrect. Even if you take an average from the previous 18 years there is probably not much of a difference.
I also don't know why you keep using this arbitary number of 20 either. There is no some difference quality between those universities ranking in the top 20 and those ranking, say, 20 - 40. There invariably is not. Broadly speaking the quality of students and graduates from the universities is comparable.
You are not a graduate employer. There are people involved in graduate recruitment who will, more or less, back up what I say (which is based on experience).
Unemployment is at a high level, though many of these will be people with limited qualifications. Although I still recognise graduate employment certainly exists at a higher level than because they usually don't know what the Russell Group is and the universities in that group. When it is used in a job advert, which is rarely, it is used as a broad term for what they may think of as "good" or traditional universities (namely pre-1992 universities) and it isn't even a hard and fast rule, either.
True, generally, but I wouldn't even say any university is great across all of its subjects. Not even Oxford and Cambridge. Outside Oxford and Cambidge all Russell Group universities will provide a comparable undergrad education (with differences on department by department basis).
It's difficult comparing but generally speaking, I'd say that depsite the fact that Durham is "top five/ten" in two of the three league tables, and QUB is in the 30s and 40s,
Looking at the league tables, Durham only significantly outperforms in student satisfaction, entry standards and completion rate, I think. Student satisfaction isn't necessarily the best way to measure a quality of a university students can rarely have experience of other universities (in order to compare). What's more large city universities often have poorer student satisfaction and this may be due to things like fear of crime, being more impersonal. These aren't academic factors.
Entry standards is a sign of popularity more than anything. Durham is creamed over by A-level students, particularly the middle class and those from top performing state schools and public schools, so will drive up typical offers. In my experience there is often little difference in academic quality between a student achieving AAA and one achieving, say, ABB-BBB. In the arts certainly.
Again class comes into it when looking at completion rates. Queen's has a very high working class intake with students often coming from non-traditional backgrounds. These are more likely to drop out compared to the middle class, affluent intake of Durham. Drop out due to financial or personal difficulties (including heath) and not because they aren't up to standard.
Looking at other criteria (spending, for example) the difference between the two is only a handful of places. QUB actually "outranks" Durham when looking at student:staff ratio only. This isn't to say that this criteria also have problems though.
I do feel that, very broadly speaking, the bulk of RG and 1994 Group universities are of a comparable standard and quality of student. Looking at QAA teaching reports, RAE, and other criteria I don't see QUB as being inferior to Durham or vice versa.
No because you're making a number of assumptions. The first is that employers look at league tables. By and large those involved in recruitment do not even look at league tables even if they do have a preference for certain universities. Do you really expect employers to rush to the league tables are produced every year and disect them?
Neither will most know who the Russell Group members are. Even those who do, they'll recognise the equally quality universities outside the RG and that the group is only a lobbying group. A university in the RG is not necessarily better, or produces higher quality graduates, than one outside. Particularly not 1994 Group institions.
They are reasonably informed people and will realise that universities do not steadily decline in quality from an arbitary position. They also have experiencing in dealing and working alongside graduates from a range of universities. This experience is often more likely to influence them than league tables.
Graduates were employed long before league tables and the RG came only in the early to mid 1990s. How did employers differentiate between applicants then? Academic performance, interview performance, work experience...
The second assumption is that they place high focus on university name. This can vary significantly from employer to employer and by sector/job role. By and large it plays a minor role (if any at all) and, when it does, is usually only of consequence in the early stages of an application. An employer will not reject a person who has enviable experience and impresses in interview just because he or she went to a universities outside the top 20.
You're barely more likely to attend a top 10 or 20 university if you're at a RG university. In fact take a look at the Independent's Complete University Guide (2011).
Four of the top 10 are RG universities. 1994 Group unis include Durham (4th) and St Andrews (6th).
Look at the top 20. 10 are Russell Group, Eight are from the 1994 Group and 2 are in neither (Aston and Buckingham). So that's an even split, isn't it?
So I'm afriad based on this year's table you're completely incorrect. Even if you take an average from the previous 18 years there is probably not much of a difference.
I also don't know why you keep using this arbitary number of 20 either. There is no some difference quality between those universities ranking in the top 20 and those ranking, say, 20 - 40. There invariably is not. Broadly speaking the quality of students and graduates from the universities is comparable.
You are not a graduate employer. There are people involved in graduate recruitment who will, more or less, back up what I say (which is based on experience).
Unemployment is at a high level, though many of these will be people with limited qualifications. Although I still recognise graduate employment certainly exists at a higher level than because they usually don't know what the Russell Group is and the universities in that group. When it is used in a job advert, which is rarely, it is used as a broad term for what they may think of as "good" or traditional universities (namely pre-1992 universities) and it isn't even a hard and fast rule, either.
Original post by FinalMH
My point that i was making is that a university doesn’t have to be good to be in the Russell group and even though it is in the Russell group doesn’t mean its "great". After all Russell Group is only group of intensive researching universities. And just because its part of the group doesn’t imply they are great for all subjects (besides few universities of course)
True, generally, but I wouldn't even say any university is great across all of its subjects. Not even Oxford and Cambridge. Outside Oxford and Cambidge all Russell Group universities will provide a comparable undergrad education (with differences on department by department basis).
Would you say in your personal opinion that Queen's University Belfast is great/good universities compared to Durham which isn’t part of the group?
It's difficult comparing but generally speaking, I'd say that depsite the fact that Durham is "top five/ten" in two of the three league tables, and QUB is in the 30s and 40s,
Looking at the league tables, Durham only significantly outperforms in student satisfaction, entry standards and completion rate, I think. Student satisfaction isn't necessarily the best way to measure a quality of a university students can rarely have experience of other universities (in order to compare). What's more large city universities often have poorer student satisfaction and this may be due to things like fear of crime, being more impersonal. These aren't academic factors.
Entry standards is a sign of popularity more than anything. Durham is creamed over by A-level students, particularly the middle class and those from top performing state schools and public schools, so will drive up typical offers. In my experience there is often little difference in academic quality between a student achieving AAA and one achieving, say, ABB-BBB. In the arts certainly.
Again class comes into it when looking at completion rates. Queen's has a very high working class intake with students often coming from non-traditional backgrounds. These are more likely to drop out compared to the middle class, affluent intake of Durham. Drop out due to financial or personal difficulties (including heath) and not because they aren't up to standard.
Looking at other criteria (spending, for example) the difference between the two is only a handful of places. QUB actually "outranks" Durham when looking at student:staff ratio only. This isn't to say that this criteria also have problems though.
I do feel that, very broadly speaking, the bulk of RG and 1994 Group universities are of a comparable standard and quality of student. Looking at QAA teaching reports, RAE, and other criteria I don't see QUB as being inferior to Durham or vice versa.
That's not actually exacttly what I said nor did I say that employers themselves are from universities (I said that they have gained experience due to employing graduates over a number of years). But, in short: -
1. By and large they don't pay attention to league tables.
2. Despite what you have said the RG universities don't always make up the majority of the top 20 universities in the country. In the Indepndent's current table they are the minority albeit only just.
These were the two main points.
Yes, graduate employment, exactly what I'm referring to. Do you honestly think I'm referring to something like an admin assistant? Law, journalism, Civil Service, medicine, engineering...
Engineering courses are often accredited by professional organisations and, once again, the 1994 Group universities can offer particularly strong engineering departments anyway (Bath, for example). Aberdeen, neither a RG or 1994 Group university, was quite a popular university in the 1970s and 1980s, due to oil, and it, along with Robert Gordon (in Aberdeen) have excellent courses and its graduates remain well represented in the oil industry and offshore energy sector. I'm friends/a close acquintance of the MD of an engineering company (was MD of the company my father, a design engineer, worked for) and an Aberdeen graduate. This has been confirmed by him (who admits that he choses according to experience and other criteria and not university name). This has also been verified by directors of another company I have experience with (including a market leading offshore engineering firm). All very successful business people, worth a few million, and with plenty of industry knowledge and experience. I can give you names if you want. This doesn't mean that a number of large companies, particularly those with a high volume of applicants, won't operate some kind of filter. But this is not some "Russell Group only" filter.
Foundation posts in the NHS are "blind" with the university name not disclosed. The Civil and Diplomatic Service are broadly accepting (a small number of universities are still disproportionately represtended in the CS but this is due to a number of factors, including that the graduates from these universities will tend to be the brightest and most able, the most successful applicants are not necessarily ones from RG universities - Durham being one example - the stats are available to view just google them).
In law the situation varies massively from high street solictor firms to the Magic circle, from provincial to top chambers. Once again, the universities most strongly represented at the top levels include non-RG universities (Durham being one).
In land and estate management Reading, not a RG university, has possibly the strongest course in the country and is well targeted by international firms.
You don't see how the situation is more complex than you are admitting and this is only scratching the surface.
Anyway, this thread is starting to go off topic. Feel free to bring it up in a relevant thread when the opportunity comes along. But, if you cannot provide informed opinion and evidence, I'll probably just ignore you. Otherwise we'll just go around in circles.
There are many threads on this topic and, in at least one thread, my information was broadly supported by Good Bloke - an employer. Do a search if you're bothered. You have failed to provide any evidence or attract any support for your, if not completely untrue certainly very misleading, view.
1. By and large they don't pay attention to league tables.
2. Despite what you have said the RG universities don't always make up the majority of the top 20 universities in the country. In the Indepndent's current table they are the minority albeit only just.
These were the two main points.
Now as I've said before, this is to do with more specific job applications e.g. anything to do with science, engineering etc, not your run-of-the-mill office work.
Yes, graduate employment, exactly what I'm referring to. Do you honestly think I'm referring to something like an admin assistant? Law, journalism, Civil Service, medicine, engineering...
Engineering courses are often accredited by professional organisations and, once again, the 1994 Group universities can offer particularly strong engineering departments anyway (Bath, for example). Aberdeen, neither a RG or 1994 Group university, was quite a popular university in the 1970s and 1980s, due to oil, and it, along with Robert Gordon (in Aberdeen) have excellent courses and its graduates remain well represented in the oil industry and offshore energy sector. I'm friends/a close acquintance of the MD of an engineering company (was MD of the company my father, a design engineer, worked for) and an Aberdeen graduate. This has been confirmed by him (who admits that he choses according to experience and other criteria and not university name). This has also been verified by directors of another company I have experience with (including a market leading offshore engineering firm). All very successful business people, worth a few million, and with plenty of industry knowledge and experience. I can give you names if you want. This doesn't mean that a number of large companies, particularly those with a high volume of applicants, won't operate some kind of filter. But this is not some "Russell Group only" filter.
Foundation posts in the NHS are "blind" with the university name not disclosed. The Civil and Diplomatic Service are broadly accepting (a small number of universities are still disproportionately represtended in the CS but this is due to a number of factors, including that the graduates from these universities will tend to be the brightest and most able, the most successful applicants are not necessarily ones from RG universities - Durham being one example - the stats are available to view just google them).
In law the situation varies massively from high street solictor firms to the Magic circle, from provincial to top chambers. Once again, the universities most strongly represented at the top levels include non-RG universities (Durham being one).
In land and estate management Reading, not a RG university, has possibly the strongest course in the country and is well targeted by international firms.
You don't see how the situation is more complex than you are admitting and this is only scratching the surface.
Anyway, this thread is starting to go off topic. Feel free to bring it up in a relevant thread when the opportunity comes along. But, if you cannot provide informed opinion and evidence, I'll probably just ignore you. Otherwise we'll just go around in circles.
There are many threads on this topic and, in at least one thread, my information was broadly supported by Good Bloke - an employer. Do a search if you're bothered. You have failed to provide any evidence or attract any support for your, if not completely untrue certainly very misleading, view.
Stop being ignorate please its annoying. Anyways back to the argument
I understand where your coming from but the point your trying to make is not back up with evidence.
This survey has been done by 2000 of the MAJOR employers across the UK. This is based on what university their graduates went to
1. Cambridge
2. Warwick
3. Manchester
4. London (LSE, Imperial, UCL)
5. Oxford
Nottingham
Bristol
Bath
Durham
Leeds
Edinburgh
Birmingham
Loughborough
Sheffield
Southampton
16. Cardiff
17. Aston
18. Strathclyde
19. Newcastle
20. Exeter
From the top 20 i think you can see that all the university mention are not all from the russell group!
This has made your argument now invalid
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport11.pdf
I understand where your coming from but the point your trying to make is not back up with evidence.
This survey has been done by 2000 of the MAJOR employers across the UK. This is based on what university their graduates went to
1. Cambridge
2. Warwick
3. Manchester
4. London (LSE, Imperial, UCL)
5. Oxford
Nottingham
Bristol
Bath
Durham
Leeds
Edinburgh
Birmingham
Loughborough
Sheffield
Southampton
16. Cardiff
17. Aston
18. Strathclyde
19. Newcastle
20. Exeter
From the top 20 i think you can see that all the university mention are not all from the russell group!
This has made your argument now invalid
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport11.pdf
I'm special like that 
Why won't you recognise what you said (RG universities make up the majority of the top 20) is, according to this year's tables, complete nonsense?
They are not "groups" in any real official sense other than being lobbying groups for research. I will say it again many employers (as well as the media) are unaware of the exact membership of the Russell Group anyway. This is shown time and time again, particularly when the media refer to Durham or York in the RG.
I have already shown that slightly majority of the universities in the top 20 of the Independent table are not in the Russell Group. If you take the Indepedent table and look at the positions of all RG universities you'll have a mean average position of 18. The 1994 Group universities have a mean average of 20.
There are, I think, 19 Russell Group universities in the Guardian's top 40 and 8 in the top 20. Again, universities not in the Russell Group are the majority.
What's more if you actually think employers do take league tables into account, then wouldn't they favour some 1994 Group universities over some Russell Group universities? Using the Independent there's around 40 positions between Durham (highest ranking 1994 Group university in the RG and Cardiff (lowestranking RG university). Using the Guardian around 50 places between St Andrews and Queen's Belfast.
Yes it is.
Yesterday you did. Something along the lines of "by being in the Russell Group they are the most prestigious".
I'm not saying that Russell Group universities and certain 1994 Group universities can be favoured by some employers in certain areas. Just not for the reasons you mention and not to the same degree as you seem to think.
Sorry for bothering you again but if you can provide some feedback it'll be appreciated.
RG = >% of higher ranking university than any other group.
Why won't you recognise what you said (RG universities make up the majority of the top 20) is, according to this year's tables, complete nonsense?
They are not "groups" in any real official sense other than being lobbying groups for research. I will say it again many employers (as well as the media) are unaware of the exact membership of the Russell Group anyway. This is shown time and time again, particularly when the media refer to Durham or York in the RG.
I have already shown that slightly majority of the universities in the top 20 of the Independent table are not in the Russell Group. If you take the Indepedent table and look at the positions of all RG universities you'll have a mean average position of 18. The 1994 Group universities have a mean average of 20.
There are, I think, 19 Russell Group universities in the Guardian's top 40 and 8 in the top 20. Again, universities not in the Russell Group are the majority.
What's more if you actually think employers do take league tables into account, then wouldn't they favour some 1994 Group universities over some Russell Group universities? Using the Independent there's around 40 positions between Durham (highest ranking 1994 Group university in the RG and Cardiff (lowestranking RG university). Using the Guardian around 50 places between St Andrews and Queen's Belfast.
Ergo, just for the ranking consideration, it makes sense to go to a RG university than any other group. Employers take ranking into consideration so say what you want, but you are simply convoluting something which is not nearly as complex as you think it is.
Yes it is.
I'm not saying it's to do precisely with the label of RG
Yesterday you did. Something along the lines of "by being in the Russell Group they are the most prestigious".
I'm not saying that Russell Group universities and certain 1994 Group universities can be favoured by some employers in certain areas. Just not for the reasons you mention and not to the same degree as you seem to think.
Good bloke
x
Sorry for bothering you again but if you can provide some feedback it'll be appreciated.
A few comments from the employers' perspective:
The number of times the vast majority of employers look at university league tables can be counted on the fingers of one foot. Many employers will advertise for "top" or "Russell Group" graduates but they will only mean "a generally well respected university and not one of those nasty recent additions of dubious quality" and, since they don't look at league tables will have only a loose idea of what they mean. Very few employers will realise that the Russell Group excludes such a well respected university as Durham and, like most students, few will realise the significance of the organisation (which is just a lobbying cartel and nothing at all to do with teaching standards or graduate quality). A very few employers will filter by university but this is only really an issue in a few law firms and investment banks.
Realistically, no candidate, having reached the testing/interview stage of a recruitment drive, will be judged on which university he went to. Having reached that stage it is all about the candidate, his abilities, the way he presents himself etc.
The number of times the vast majority of employers look at university league tables can be counted on the fingers of one foot. Many employers will advertise for "top" or "Russell Group" graduates but they will only mean "a generally well respected university and not one of those nasty recent additions of dubious quality" and, since they don't look at league tables will have only a loose idea of what they mean. Very few employers will realise that the Russell Group excludes such a well respected university as Durham and, like most students, few will realise the significance of the organisation (which is just a lobbying cartel and nothing at all to do with teaching standards or graduate quality). A very few employers will filter by university but this is only really an issue in a few law firms and investment banks.
Realistically, no candidate, having reached the testing/interview stage of a recruitment drive, will be judged on which university he went to. Having reached that stage it is all about the candidate, his abilities, the way he presents himself etc.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Computer science degree
- Will resitting my gcse twice affect my choice of uni
- Getting onto a Law Masters course at Uni of Manchester
- I want to resit one of my A-level
- Law
- can i do dentistry after resitting my alevels?
- Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?
- do I still have a chance at a Russel group uni?
- Msc Clinical Psychology in University of Sussex/ Uni of Exeter or Royal Holloway?
- BTEC in russell groups
- Is my career in law over? Advice needed!
- Failing 2nd year
- Can I get into engineering with these subjects at A level?
- Applying with resits
- Feeling Unsure about My Future Post A Level Results Day
- Can I get into uni with these gcse grades?
- A Level options HELP !!!: Environmental science
- Magic circle
- Really anxious about going back to sixth form
- A- Level choices - maths, further maths and physics
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 6 days ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 week ago
I've been rejected by UoN Law School but given an alternative offerLast reply 1 week ago
2024 applicants: what's your main concern around starting uni?Last reply 2 weeks ago
UCAS Applications + Uni Applicant Thread Directory for 2024 **Official Thread**Last reply 2 weeks ago
Study now at Exeter or wait one year to study at KCL or Bristol?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Deciding between universities - Exeter vs WarwickLast reply 2 weeks ago
Not heard back from some unis after applying in early December, should I be worried?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 6 days ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 week ago
I've been rejected by UoN Law School but given an alternative offerLast reply 1 week ago
2024 applicants: what's your main concern around starting uni?Last reply 2 weeks ago
UCAS Applications + Uni Applicant Thread Directory for 2024 **Official Thread**Last reply 2 weeks ago
Study now at Exeter or wait one year to study at KCL or Bristol?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Deciding between universities - Exeter vs WarwickLast reply 2 weeks ago
Not heard back from some unis after applying in early December, should I be worried?
